That's just not true. Notice how you don't give any examples. Here are examples of unstable Republics. German Republic. Italian Republic. Russian Republic. French Republic. Almost all of Latin America. Almost all of Africa the middle East large parts of Asia etc

Never said republics can’t be unstable. Said pure democracy (simple majority rule) always kills itself. There’s a reason our founders called it “the tyranny of the masses,” and designed a constitutionally limited republic to protect the individual instead of the majority. Pure democracy is mob rule. @@nevetstrevel4711

​@@nevetstrevel4711 Given thousands of years of recorded history we can safely generalize to "no government or government style is long-term stable". Entropy will eventually eat your civilization no matter what you do.

@@nevetstrevel4711 It's absolutely true. A better quote I've heard was to the effect of "Democracy only lasts until the people realize they can vote themselves money from the treasury". Pure democracy is one of the worst forms of government ever conceived because the masses have zero visibility into the consequences of what they do and always lean toward the most selfish option, especially as time goes on.

​@@nevetstrevel4711having Republic written in with the name of a country doesn't make it a Republic. Look at the People's Republic of China, it's a communist nation. There's nothing republic about it. It's a communist nation. So if you can't share the difference between a democracy and a republic, then you shouldn't be offering your opinion about either of them. Only makes you sound like a fool.

Democracies are literally Hell on Earth . Followed by communist/socialist dictatorships.

Amen!

This statement is meaningless. China is a “republic.” North Korea is a “republic.” Banana republics are a thing. What separates the American republic from all the other “republics” out there? The answer is a trustworthy form of representative democracy.

Tell that to the Democrats, who seem to be going out of their way to pandering to the uninformed masses

U sound like a kid who didn’t get to pick what game is played on the playground so u call everyone else stupid haha. The minute ur opinion is the numerical majority u’ll be all for the will of the people rather than a republic.

"In Democracy, 51% of the people have 100% of the power." --me

I love that quote

Me too. How can ya not?@@williamleadbetter9686

Constitutional Republic: Another way of saying, "democracy".

No, not even close for a myriad of reasons. Crack a book.@@Limosethe

Correction: a constitutional federal republic.

A Constitutional Republic with a Representative Democracy.

a constitutional republic

Republic is just representative democracy, still the same mob rule with extra steps. Instead of 2 out of 3 deciding to rob the 3rd, 30 elect 3 and 2 out of the 3 decide to rob all 30. The only way to keep your freedoms is not a democracy or a republic, it is to be DANGEROUS to those who want to rob you of your freedom. If the danger of your resistance is higher to THEM (and not just their agents or followers) than the profit they would get from robbing you. Learn the difference between a free man and a slave in history. If you don't resist DANGEROUSLY (the v word belongs here, but...), you are a slave. Now cope.

A constitution is a contract, a set of governmental bylaws, and a thesis statement. It is not unique to the US even in 1787. We are a Republic and a federated one as a union of member states. This is the description and definitions of G. Washington, Ben Franklin, Madison and Hamilton who were all there writing it. Muddling of these terms came from rhetoric of Presidents Adams and Jefferson who WERE NOT THERE, but in Europe as ambassadors for the former US government at the time. Our nation is a hybrid of equal member state committee (The Senate), the district elected House (the People's representatives) and a president elected by a nearly invisible one purpose Congress called the Electoral College that matches that hybrid math* The people relinquished some authority to their various states, and the states relinquished some authority to a Federal government. None of the states at large were direct democracies in 1787 and they aren't now. The power was purposefully left with the states, and the people of those states could better control their representatives...since they were closer to the officials. Virginians concentrated on Virginia representation. Massachusetts concentrated on Massachusetts representation. There is no national entity that controls them both, and a President is just a hired executive officer. IOW there are NO PARTIES in the US Constitution because the founders knew how parties had manipulated the UKs Articles of Union (their Constitution) to vest most of the rule in London Large parties were created by the Adams faction and the Jefferson faction using newspaper media to do exactly what this gentleman describes. Have a large enough table to beat down opposition and use the little guy for their desires....useful idiots. You want to experience the original intended government....get rid of parties.

Government employees get more retirement benefits to make up for their lower salary compared to the private sector. That said, there are studies showing that in terms of total compensation (salary + retirement + other benefits), lower tiered government workers (high school diploma or just a bachelor's degree) are compensated more than the private sector while higher tiered government workers (people with masters, professional, or doctorate degrees) are compensated less than/are underpaid relative to the private sector.

@@Intranetusa On "Judge Judy" one day the plaintiff was a retired D.C. garbage man. He'd retired at 52 with full pension. Judge Judy asked him how much he was getting. $43 000 a year . That plus he was working. They should all be put on Social Security. I bet the government would suddenly fix the low low amount us common folks, who've paid in all our lives, get. Of course, if congress hadn't borrowed/stolen our SS money there'd be over 4 trillion dollars in the SS fund. Earning interest, too.

Five alcoholic drinks at a work dinner? Damn... some of your coworkers get down!

Totally agree!

@@TheHamburgler123 After work at resturant. Some had a "martini lunch" often though. Not me 'cause it only makes me sleepy.

Lied to and miseducated. The schools teach democracy and the bill of rights. They only briefly touch on the amendments. You don’t know what your implicit and explicit god given rights are. Rockefeller was the founder of the current federal education system. He also stated"I don’t want a nation of thinkers, I want a nation of workers". And like sheep to slaughter we have blindly followed. Don’t just rely on the education system, we need to educate ourselves

*WORLD TRADE CENTER SEVEN WAS DESTROYED BY CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. THAT WAS PROVED BY THE GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY! THEY JUST DID NOT BOTHER TO COME RIGHT OUT AND SAY IT.*

Read the history of not only the United States, but the history of the world. you will see that democracy is the government that falls the fastest and farthest, Democracies function as if all humans are inherently good. Constitutional republics function on the idea that all men have the capacity to willfully and selfishly become evil. The constitution of a nation must recognize this and have ways in place to stop it. Democracies have no such safeguards

They've worked very hard to engineer that idea out of the collective consciousness because it does not benefit the ruling class. They really want everyone to believe the United States operates via mob rule because they are experts are placing themselves at the head of the mob.

That's what we are supposed to be, but I'm not sure that it's what we currently are.

The communication disconnect is that the term "Democracy" is being used in two separate ways by Democrats. One version means "a representative government in which the governed people vote for the governmental decision makers", and it is the Webster definition that pedants use to mock Republicans for saying that "we're a Republic". The other is actually the definition of an absolute Democracy, in which "the majority opinion should always be the prevailing control of the government", and it is the way that Dems use the word when talking about how "popular" their opinions are and how that should override all other factors. This problem stems out of the "Rules for Radicals" tactic espoused by the domestic terrorist Saul Alinski and popularized through the activist work of people like the Clintons and the Obamas. The tactic essentially consists of the following ideas. (1) relabel all of the words people don't like about our political beliefs so that they sound nice and our opponents are monsters for opposing them. (2) Redefine all of the good words so that they mean only what we want them to mean, and we can hide bad ideas under the good connotations of traditional language. (3) Redefine the virtues attributed to our opponents so that they don't apply to them anymore and they only ever sound like idiot monsters that no one should try to reason or communicate with. "If you control the vocabulary, you control the argument" (Saul Alinski). In this case, absolute Democracy has failed miserably in every instance it was attempted. Republics also have been too slow and lumbering to adapt to new problems. That's why the two were blended in a fashion that protects traditional rights and freedoms from government oppression, as a priority over simple majority rule. Thus, we are not an absolute Democracy, but actually a Constitutional Republic with Democratic principles. Of course, that's where we get into the redefinition of "rights" and "freedoms", which are beautiful words that have been redefined for political ends. You have no right to be given commodities necessary for life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, but you do have a right to not be restricted from pursuing them, as long as they aren't actually harming people. Unfortunately, even the word "harm" has been modified for political ends, but i digress. Rights are also restricted based on whether they harm other people, most especially the innocent. The government doesn't give rights, but rather must be prevented from stealing rights. Similarly, "freedom" isn't a license to do whatever you want.

@@carsonrush3352 you have made the most sense out of anyone that has ever broached the subject of what we are. A Constitutional Republic with Democratic principles... makes the most sense in our founding fathers were trying to set a system of government that hasnt been done before or since. And you are correct we are given the right to pursue the big 3 without harming others, but also to defend our means of doing so in the face of others seeking to do harm or impede

Machiavelli said the most stable societies incorperate not 1 but 2 forms of rule, but 3 is more stable yet. Our founders being well educated statesmen created a Constitutional, Republican, Democracy to create and restrict government of and by the people that protects individuals with unlimited god given rights from the mob/masses while guaranteeing all individuals the right to vote on matters of importance. I couldn't help but notice how politicians and newspeople are always saying/hawking democracy without including the MOST IMPORTANT part of our government structure. They sound either like utter idiots or their trying to put something over on us. As for alinsky all his talking points are straight out of the marxist/communist strategy.....go figure. 🤔

The founding fathers didn't like political parties anyway but they happened naturally. You often see a lot of complaints online from non-Americans (and some Americans) complaining about our "two-party system", but we were literally never created to have _any_ political parties. They just happened naturally, and throughout much of our history there were two primary viewpoints that formed political parties... but we have had times where no political parties were prominent, only one political party was prominent, and also more than two. We've never been a "two-party" system in any of the strictest sense. Its just that we have typically had about two parties most people tend to vote for, hence our so-called "two-party system". But "two-party system" implies its encoded into law that we only have two parties, which we don't.

Karen from Florida

@@Jynxthedominator Hardly. Apparently ignorance is your strong-suit. ~Sharon from Florida

In the US the candidate with the most votes is elected. It is a democracy. Anyone saying it isn't is making excuses for the right undermining democracy. Another rightwing youtube channel, not watching.

"Our Democracy" translates to "Lib plans" or "My desires"

You mean a "Representative Democracy"?

But the majority wouldn't. Your apology is almost as stupid as the tool that made the video.

Nah, that's literally every collective of human society in history.

Democracy is a system where the best liars fool majority and rob everyone.

So they storm the helm and chant “hang the vice captain!” when they lost the vote on where to steer. Oh wait, you meant for that to be a pro Trump analogy justifying why he should be president regardless of the electoral outcome, didn’t you?

@@therealbahamut yes, always been democrats.

A plutocracy is pigs deciding how much food the other livestock gets

Even a broken clock is right twice a day: Hitler pointed out the main flaw in pure democracy, " The votes of two idiots overrule the vote of one wise man". That's why U.S. is a republic, not a democracy. Every pure democracy in history has devolved into a dictatorship within 2 generations.

No, no, no it's 3 wolves and one sheep. I have it on good authority. 😂

I've heard it as "3 wolves and 2 sheep voting what's for lunch, and the sheep each have a firearm loaded with one shot."

Republic is just representative democracy, still the same mob rule with extra steps. Instead of 2 out of 3 deciding to rob the 3rd, 30 elect 3 and 2 out of the 3 decide to rob all 30. The only way to keep your freedoms is not a democracy or a republic, it is to be DANGEROUS to those who want to rob you of your freedom. If the danger of your resistance is higher to THEM (and not just their agents or followers) than the profit they would get from robbing you. Learn the difference between a free man and a slave in history. If you don't resist DANGEROUSLY (the v word belongs here, but...), you are a slave. Now cope.

The electoral college should be abolished. One person one vote.

A republic is a representative democracy 😂

​@@bloodgoutno it's not. Only ignorant people think a republic and democracy are the same thing.

Republic is just representative democracy, still the same mob rule with extra steps. Instead of 2 out of 3 deciding to rob the 3rd, 30 elect 3 and 2 out of the 3 decide to rob all 30. The only way to keep your freedoms is not a democracy or a republic, it is to be DANGEROUS to those who want to rob you of your freedom. If the danger of your resistance is higher to THEM (and not just their agents or followers) than the profit they would get from robbing you. Learn the difference between a free man and a slave in history. If you don't resist DANGEROUSLY (the v word belongs here, but...), you are a slave. Now cope.

@@RextheRebel No it shouldn't, otherwise the fate of this country would be determined by the concentrated population centers and entire swaths of this country wouldn't be represented at all. If anything the electoral college should be expanded to state elections.

A Constitutional DEMOCRATIC Republic. What you and other commenters are describing as a "republic" is a constitutional representative democracy.

@@user-wu5tz5ws5p the term “democracy” does NOT appear in any founding documents, but Republicans does. I think the left is focusing on Democracy alone.

Republic is just representative democracy, still the same mob rule with extra steps. Instead of 2 out of 3 deciding to rob the 3rd, 30 elect 3 and 2 out of the 3 decide to rob all 30. The only way to keep your freedoms is not a democracy or a republic, it is to be DANGEROUS to those who want to rob you of your freedom. If the danger of your resistance is higher to THEM (and not just their agents or followers) than the profit they would get from robbing you. Learn the difference between a free man and a slave in history. If you don't resist DANGEROUSLY (the v word belongs here, but...), you are a slave. Now cope.

Ironically that's more accurate then one might believe. In democracies with separation of power one of the three parts of government always dominates the other to some degree.

The Constitution says the nation is supposed to be but that does not matter.

The USA is a democratic Constitutional Republic (it has democracy elements such as elections). So we are a form of representative democracy. The Founding Fathers warned us against direct democracy (which they called pure democracy) and they favored representative democracy (impure democracy). The distinction is important because modern China is also a Constitutional Republic (they have a republic structure of representatives for the people and have a written constitution too), but they don't have any democratic elections.

Yeah, so the ignorant masses can all vote for the person who promises the most at the expense of national fiscal health.

Unfortunately all systems and structures man creates are corruptable and will be over time. In the end it's what form and to what extent. Thats why we have the form of goverment we do. But it only works if the people are vigilant and exercise their power. Otherwise we'll end up like ALL past civilizations. Extinct.

Truth!

Democracy means "reign of demos"(demos is middle class or free citizens in Greece) , Res Publica means "public matters" , they are literally as close to each other as possible

That would be nice if the democrats didn't have education in vicegrip.

It's not just Democrats. The Republican party is a steaming pile of wet garbage too, and a lot of them, both representatives and the general public, are constantly spewing "democracy." A large portion of the American public as a whole needs to be educated. Neither party has your best interests in mind, and neither gives a damn about any of us.

Republic is just representative democracy, still the same mob rule with extra steps. Instead of 2 out of 3 deciding to rob the 3rd, 30 elect 3 and 2 out of the 3 decide to rob all 30. The only way to keep your freedoms is not a democracy or a republic, it is to be DANGEROUS to those who want to rob you of your freedom. If the danger of your resistance is higher to THEM (and not just their agents or followers) than the profit they would get from robbing you. Learn the difference between a free man and a slave in history. If you don't resist DANGEROUSLY (the v word belongs here, but...), you are a slave. Now cope.

@@user-no4fq3dt7d No, they aren't, they are distinctly different. The founders warned against a democracy, hence the term appears nowhere in our founding documents.

I like to make this argument instead of the argument "We're not a Democracy, we're a Republic!" Because tbh, I don't think we're either of those things anymore. The country is mostly run by unelected bureaucrats nowadays. Voting barely even matters at this point, the direction of the country doesn't change. I do agree that we should NOT be a Democracy, but a Republic, as that's literally what our Constitution says we are. But we're really not at this point.

Unfortunately Democratic politicians are the Idiocracy. Fortunately Democrat voters are getting smarter by the day

"It was supposed to be a satire, not a goddamned blueprint" -Mike Judge

Please don't blame democrats for this idiocracy. It's the Democrat party's policies that are idiotic. Someday Democrats will have gotten sane again.

It would be even better if it had more nuance. There are different types of democracies. The United States of America is a representative democracy - it is not a direct democracy. A republic with elections is a type of representative democracy (people vote for leaders who make decisions). Direct democracy is when people vote directly on an issue and the fewer elected leaders don't have very much power and can more easily be recalled by voters. The Founding Fathers opposed direct democracy, not representative democracy. This is seen in the Founding Fathers' writings where they criticize something called "pure democracy" that they describe as voters deciding directly on issues (direct democracy) - which is in contrast to an impure democracy (America's democratic Republicanism/representative democracy).

The problem with our country isn't what it is or what its supposed to be. Or what is written. The problem with our country is people are ignorant to what the country is supposed to be and the leadership is either ignorant or corrupt as well, so they do whatever the hell they want.

CGP Grey is also a far left liberal who wants direct democracy and hates republics. and is a crazy nihilist.

except for all our territories at the very blue DC

No taxation without representation.

@@nolegirl4godThe problem with your statement is 40% of the people don't pay any Federal taxes. So why should they get to elect people who make tax policy. Thus, NO representation WITHOUT taxation.

That's a moron8c apology. Resturants sell what people want the most. They are already democratic.

@@someguy5438 With your second sentence, you are being 'literal' in regards to restaurants. But I was talking about it as an analogy. And it is an excellent one. I also think you may be typing too fast because your first comment does not make sense: moron8c apology?

Might makes right?

Russia was never a democracy

Soviet Union = USSR, which stands for the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics." The Soviet "Republic" was a Republic without elections and without much democratic elements. There are direct democracies (such as ancient Athens) and there are representative democracies/democratic republics (such as ancient Roman Republic). The Soviet Union was neither. The Soviets were an authoritarian Republic like modern China (which is also a Republic but has no elections and no real democratic elements).

This comment speaks volumes about the American education system when prople belive that in a country who had 258 million people at it’s peak, somehow lost 60% of their population. No wonder people don’t know the difference between direct democracy and a constitutional republic

@@ArmaDino22 Okay, let me clarify. The number I wrote being 140,000,000 is the upper estimate of the total victims of Communism Worldwide - which started in 1917 with the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. I would be just as acurate if I laid them all the feet of Karl marx, who advocated for violence. In Russia , the number of victims can only be guessed at, but sources quote numbers in the range of 20,000,000 from 1921-1954 when Kruschiev abolished the Gulag system. It does not count the fatalities from WW2, but does take into account the re-patriated Soviet troops that were captured by the Germans as well as many troops that liberated European regions, but were then deemed too enlightened by contact with the west, and were shipped straight on to Siberia when they thought they were going home.. China, and other countries contributed the rest of the victims, with China murdering at least 50,000,000 from 1946- 1973 by deliberate starvation during a deep famine, forced labor, outright massacre, and banishment to the undeveloped countryside, to be left without anything but the clothes on their backs. In Chinese culture, that's a death sentence when you are labelled an enemy of the people. It was the Chinese model that influenced Pol Pot, who murdered almost 1/3 the population of Cambodia. The rest of the 140,000,000 are scattered among the dozens of brushfire wars around the world - initiated by Communism during the Cold War. It is an estimate based upon UN interviews and population density reductions after conflicts. No true figures are possible. No doubt the relatively small scale of the Rwandan Atrocity would never have been so well known if it weren't for the internet. I agree on the low qualities of the American educational system, but I learned all this after I left it. And more. And yes, many people don't know the difference between a constitutional republic and direct democracy - and we're on the way to losing that republic.

There are different types of democracies. The United States of America and the Roman Republic is/are a representative democracy - they are not a direct democracy. A republic with elections is a type of representative democracy (people vote for leaders who make decisions). Direct democracy is when people vote directly on an issue and the fewer elected leaders don't have very much power and can more easily be recalled by voters. The Founding Fathers opposed direct democracy, not representative democracy. This is seen in the Founding Fathers' writings where they criticize something called "pure democracy" that they describe as voters deciding directly on issues (direct democracy) - which is in contrast to an impure democracy (America's democratic Republicanism/representative democracy). Also, what is ironic is Ancient Athenian direct democracy had a written Constitution but the Roman republican representative democracy did not.

@@Intranetusa Yes, those are good points to be sure. I was referring to the first form of Athenian Democracy that would just result in mob rule, which the founders were talking about. It also didn’t last that long and was eventually conquered my the monarchy of the Macedonian Philip II. Yeah the Irony of the ancient Athenian and Roman Constitution and lack of one is very interesting.

@@praetorian1877 Yep, you are correct. The Athenian direct democracy did often result in mob rule, and the Founders feared and disliked it.

@@Intranetusa Unfortunately most people don’t know or worse are apathetic to history.

Republic is just representative democracy, still the same mob rule with extra steps. Instead of 2 out of 3 deciding to rob the 3rd, 30 elect 3 and 2 out of the 3 decide to rob all 30. The only way to keep your freedoms is not a democracy or a republic, it is to be DANGEROUS to those who want to rob you of your freedom. If the danger of your resistance is higher to THEM (and not just their agents or followers) than the profit they would get from robbing you. Learn the difference between a free man and a slave in history. If you don't resist DANGEROUSLY (the v word belongs here, but...), you are a slave. Now cope.

Not so sure about that. I know there's that Churchill quote, but master rhetorician he was he's not the final authority on the subject.

​@@Pteromandiasyou're so right, so stop leaning on Churchill so much and talk about the other intelligent people in the world

I mean… it’s utterly idiotic, because it represented not a direct democracy but the current American political system. You can’t vote for the pork chop party because it’s first past the post, so you’re stuck voting for only two parties if you want your vote to count. And the only two parties with actual influence are incredibly blunt because they have to accommodate a hopelessly large and diverse portion of the electorate into a single party platform.

It is not a DIRECT democracy but a REPRESENTATIVE democracy. It's like saying a car is not a vehicle.

our republic is a democracy just not the type you understand

America is a representative democratic republic.

It is neither for a long long time. Our Constitution is being violated millions times per day, it means nothing anymore. They don't even make amendments for the direct violations when they used to make an amendment for the alcohol which was not even mentioned in the Constitution. 19th was such a deathly mistake.

For people whose cognitive development didn’t come to a screeching halt in kindergarten, that was an example of why the first past the post system which the American political system relies on is flawed, not an example of why “hurr durr democracy is bad”. The functioning democratic world (you know, the rest of the Western world, where one side of the political establishment isn’t seriously debating within itself whether or not it should seek to overthrow democracy) has more than two generic, shockingly similar parties to vote for.

NONSENSE. You show that, unlike our FOUNDERS-FRAMERS, you DO NOT KNOW the difference between a NATION and its GOVT. There is a reason We The People of the USA have two NATIONAL DOCUMENTS: [a] our Unanimous Declaration of 4 July 1776; and, [b] our Federal CONSTITUTION [1788-89]. The first is to define our NATIONHOOD and the other --- almost a dozen years later --- to define our System of LAW.

@CuyanaTGen That is a quote from one of our Nation's Founding Father's Genius! Democracy is Mob Rule, nothing more.

That's how it used to be, but nowadays everyone is allowed to vote and encouraged to vote because "its your civic duty", but in reality they're just playing mind games to get ignorant people to vote them into power.

a republic: a type of liberal representative democracy by definition

"the main problem with any system is power" applies to direct versions ofc but not our version

@@cypherphoenix2665 Because none of our politicians in our republic misuse their power, they are all paragons of virtue. And definitely not on the contact list for a child sex trafficker (with preferences noted).

​@@darthhodges i cant decide if your reply is more of a red herring fallacy or a straw man ""the main problem with any system is power" applies to direct versions ofc but not our version" this needs additional clarification: power is the issue but the source of that power is different in a direct vs representative or the people vs the government direct types grant great levels of authority in the hands of the people representative republics create a center ground dictatorships grant great levels of authority in the hands of the government our society fails when individual people make their own decisions **exclusively**

@@cypherphoenix2665 My reply was 100% sarcasm, but this one isn't. Certainly not every politician/government employee abuses their authority but far too many do. I am convinced the best remedy for government corruption is weak government. You can't abuse authority you don't have and it's not worth bribing a government that doesn't have the power to give you what want. There is a minimum, I want there to be a justice system with laws that are enforced fairly and a military. There may be other things that are best handled by government. But that minimum is a long way from where we are now.